> diff --git a/fs/bpf_fs_kfuncs.c b/fs/bpf_fs_kfuncs.c > index f1863a891db6..7b55073934e0 100644 > --- a/fs/bpf_fs_kfuncs.c > +++ b/fs/bpf_fs_kfuncs.c > @@ -11,7 +11,9 @@ > #include <linux/file.h> > #include <linux/kernfs.h> > #include <linux/mm.h> > +#include <linux/security.h> > #include <linux/xattr.h> > +#include <uapi/linux/lsm.h> > > __bpf_kfunc_start_defs(); > > @@ -379,6 +381,44 @@ __bpf_kfunc struct inode *bpf_real_data_inode(struct > file *file) > return d_real_inode(file_dentry(file)); > } > > +/** > + * bpf_init_inode_xattr - set an xattr on a new inode from > inode_init_security > + * @xattrs: inode_init_security xattr state from the hook context > + * @name__str: xattr name (e.g., "bpf.file_label") > + * @value_p: dynptr containing the xattr value > + * > + * Only callable from lsm/inode_init_security programs. > + * > + * Return: 0 on success, -EOPNOTSUPP if the filesystem does not accept > + * xattrs at inode creation, negative error on other failures. > + */ > +__bpf_kfunc int bpf_init_inode_xattr(struct lsm_xattrs *xattrs, > + const char *name__str, > + const struct bpf_dynptr *value_p)
Paul Moore raised a concern about the location of this kfunc. As the LSM maintainer, he stated that this kfunc must be placed in security/bpf_lsm_kfuncs.c to be acceptable. In the v6 discussion, he explained: "The new LSM kfunc must go in security/bpf_lsm_kfuncs.c; if that isn't acceptable to the BPF developers then David will need to find a new way that doesn't involve kfuncs." Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi disagreed with this placement requirement, arguing that it should remain in fs/ with other kfuncs. This represents an unresolved maintainer disagreement. Should this kfunc be moved to security/bpf_lsm_kfuncs.c as the LSM maintainer requested, or does this need further discussion between the BPF and LSM maintainers before merging? Reference: https://lore.kernel.org/all/CAHC9VhTS7rSnBqg00ZxNkcZyh_=eejmn_4z3ctccxreeedt...@mail.gmail.com/ > +{ > + struct bpf_dynptr_kern *value_ptr = (struct bpf_dynptr_kern *)value_p; > + const void *value; > + u32 value_len; > + > + if (!name__str) > + return -EINVAL; > + if (strncmp(name__str, XATTR_BPF_LSM_SUFFIX, > + sizeof(XATTR_BPF_LSM_SUFFIX) - 1)) > + return -EPERM; > + > + if (!xattrs->xattrs) > + return -EOPNOTSUPP; > + > + value_len = __bpf_dynptr_size(value_ptr); > + value = __bpf_dynptr_data(value_ptr, value_len); > + if (!value) > + return -EINVAL; > + > + return security_lsmxattr_add(xattrs, LSM_ID_BPF, > + name__str + sizeof(XATTR_BPF_LSM_SUFFIX) - > 1, > + value, value_len); > +} > + > __bpf_kfunc_end_defs(); > > BTF_KFUNCS_START(bpf_fs_kfunc_set_ids) > @@ -390,6 +430,7 @@ BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_get_file_xattr, KF_SLEEPABLE) > BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_set_dentry_xattr, KF_SLEEPABLE) > BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_remove_dentry_xattr, KF_SLEEPABLE) > BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_real_data_inode, KF_SLEEPABLE | KF_RET_NULL) > +BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_init_inode_xattr) > BTF_KFUNCS_END(bpf_fs_kfunc_set_ids) --- AI reviewed your patch. Please fix the bug or email reply why it's not a bug. See: https://github.com/kernel-patches/vmtest/blob/master/ci/claude/README.md CI run summary: https://github.com/kernel-patches/bpf/actions/runs/30592505811
